Call a spade a spade is the old saying

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter polyb
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of government-paid punditry and propaganda, particularly in the context of U.S. politics. Participants explore the ethical concerns surrounding the use of taxpayer money to promote government policies through media figures, reflecting on historical and contemporary practices in journalism and political communication.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern over the ethical implications of paying columnists to promote government policies, suggesting it misleads the public into believing they are receiving independent opinions.
  • Others argue that such practices have likely been ongoing and may not be new, questioning the extent of the issue and whether it has always been this severe.
  • A few participants reference historical examples, such as Watergate, to draw parallels with current events and speculate on potential investigations and their outcomes.
  • Some contributions highlight a general cynicism towards both politicians and journalists, suggesting that propaganda is a common practice across the board.
  • There are differing views on whether the actions of the government constitute propaganda, with some participants debating the definitions and implications of the term.
  • One participant notes the need for more context regarding the referenced article, indicating a desire for deeper understanding before forming strong opinions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express disagreement on the ethicality and implications of government-paid punditry, with multiple competing views on the prevalence and historical context of such practices. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus on the definitions or implications of propaganda.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include varying definitions of propaganda, differing perceptions of media integrity, and the influence of historical context on current events. Some participants acknowledge the complexity of these issues without reaching definitive conclusions.

polyb
Messages
67
Reaction score
0
Call a spade a spade is the old saying. I found this article and it struck me with the WTF jaw drop, it appears that a lot of people were on the pay roll. From the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050127/USMEDIA27/TPInternational/?query=alan+freeman

WASHINGTON -- U.S. President George W. Bush vowed yesterday that his administration will stop paying newspaper columnists and pundits to back its policies after the second right-wing commentator in a month acknowledged receiving a contract from a government agency to help promote one of its policies.

"All our cabinet secretaries must realize that we will not be paying commentators to advance our agenda," Mr. Bush told reporters. "Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its two feet."

Just how long have these people have been up to this and how many pundits were bought off? As if it wasn't obvious.

Who remembers Jessica Lynch?

A definition just for the heck of it!
pro·pa·gan·da:
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=propaganda&x=20&y=15
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
It makes you wonder doesn't it...maybe this sort of thing has always been going on and will continue to go on, but things have to get quite bad before it's considered propaganda maybe...anyway, "welcome to the real world", hehe, I want to be a pundit when I grow up!
 
What else is new? :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:
 
spender said:
What else is new? :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

The expose'! :bugeye:
 
jammieg said:
It makes you wonder doesn't it...maybe this sort of thing has always been going on and will continue to go on, but things have to get quite bad before it's considered propaganda maybe...

I have known for long enough that 'NEWS' has served varied interests. Look into Chomsky sometime to read his critiques, he is all about that. The difference now is that this administration has been caught red handed and has used tax dollars for this propaganda. This question is how extensive is the network and how far will this crew go if they feel comfortable enough to be open about it.

BTW, the connotation of the word does not changed the denotation of it. Of course most people respond to perception 'as if' it was reality and why connotation carries more weight with a lot of people.

jammieg said:
anyway, "welcome to the real world", hehe, I want to be a pundit when I grow up!

Great, another windbag and pulp waster to squandor resources! :rolleyes:
 
Very interesting stuff Polyb, after some more thought you know they have vowed to stop now, they admit it was wrong and are very sorry but I have a feeling these are mostly more again, although I'll bet most administrations got away with "covert means of mass public informing" or whatever it's called...It's almost like having a farther who does all the thinking for me.
 
Second political pundit? That's old news. The day directly after Bush made that comment about not paying any more pundits and news-people, a third pundit was revealed as being on The Administration's payroll.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=61735
 
:eek: ... government sanctioned propaganda ... how low can they go ... :devil:
 
polyb said:
...this administration has been caught red handed and has used tax dollars for this propaganda. This question is how extensive is the network and how far will this crew go if they feel comfortable enough to be open about it.

I suppose now there will be an investigation...and questions of how this may have swayed election results...tampering...like Watergate...leading to impeachment proceedings. Yeh, about like there have been investigations into whether intelligence was falsified about Iraq. It really wouldn't matter anyway, because Bush supporters will justify it in some way--like responses that this happens all the time, so what's the big deal?
 
  • #10
SOS2008 said:
I suppose now there will be an investigation...and questions of how this may have swayed election results...tampering...like Watergate...leading to impeachment proceedings. Yeh, about like there have been investigations into whether intelligence was falsified about Iraq. It really wouldn't matter anyway, because Bush supporters will justify it in some way--like responses that this happens all the time, so what's the big deal?

Well, it does, doesn't it? At least Bush is saying he shouldn't be doing it and plans on stopping. Not that I believe him, but this makes little difference to me anyway as I've learned not to trust the media as a reliable source of information. Someone as cynical as yourself should be a big believer that everyone does this. Even the author of this thread posts quite a bit of factually incorrect propaganda, although granted, it isn't the same coming from a nobody on an internet forum and coming from the president of the USA. Although technically, this might not qualify as propaganda under certain definitions of the term. If you believe any solicited support to be propaganda, then it does. But many will stipulate that to be propaganda, the information disseminated be false, which this article never says took place. The definition posted is a pretty weak definition and under that definition any political commentary whatsoever, whether solicited or otherwise, is propaganda.

Anyway, it's pretty sick that journalists would do this, and I know they do it all the time, along with making up sources and not confirming others and injecting their own biases into supposedly neutral newscasts. I think I have less respect at this point for most journalists than I do for most politicians.
 
  • #11
What's wrong with paying newspaper columnists to promote the govt policies. Its just like advertising right?
 
  • #12
No, it's not ! :mad:

When you advertise your product, we know that it is you that is trying to sell it to us.

When you pay a reporter to praise your policy, you are misleading the people into believing that they are reading an independent opinion.

This is a shameless, despicable, cowardly act !
 
  • #13
loseyourname said:
Someone as cynical as yourself should be a big believer that everyone does this.

Yes I can be cynical (and facetious), and yes I believe everyone uses propaganda to some extent. But it seems that since 9-11 things have become extreme, both in practices of politicians and the media, and acceptance by the public. While it probably wasn't a good idea to investigate the PDB after the 9-11 attack, due diligence should have been done prior to invading Iraq, and questioning of the every-changing reasons for the war since. Then came Slampaign 2004, with all-time lows from agencies like FOX News, and now this. Think of all the time and tax dollars spent on something like Whitewater, not so long ago. But now everyone is so complacent, saying this is just the way politics and the media have always been. I don't think it has always been this bad. Maybe I'm too idealistic.
 
  • #14
By the way, a subscription is required to read the full article. It would be nice to actually know the contents before getting inflamed over them.
 

Similar threads

News 3rd Pundit revealed as being on Bush Admin's payroll.
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
13K
News Renaissance and reaction to Islam.
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
8K